Political Remarks Not Defamation: Delhi Court Dismisses Case Against Sitharaman; Terms It ‘Worthless’

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal, sitting at the Rouse Avenue Courts, declined to take cognisance of the complaint, famously invoking the word “floccinaucinihilipilification” to describe the case.

“The word is ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’, which implies something valueless or worthless. The present complaint is nothing but the word stated above, wherein a valueless or worthless material has been stretched too long,” the Court observed.

The complaint had been filed under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that Sitharaman made defamatory, false and malicious statements during a press conference on May 17, 2024, which was broadcast across television and digital platforms during the Lok Sabha election campaign.

Mitra contended that the statements were intended to tarnish the reputation of her husband, Somnath Bharti, and weaken his electoral prospects as a candidate of the INDIA alliance.

Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the statements made by Sitharaman were part of political discourse and did not meet the threshold of criminal defamation.

“A political opponent cannot be called to have defamed the other when they are presenting certain scenarios against an opposite candidate,” the Court noted, adding that the press conference, when read in its entirety, amounted to “political opposition and antagonism” directed at the Aam Aadmi Party and the INDIA alliance.

The Court further found that no specific defamatory statement had been attributed to Mitra in the complaint. It noted that Sitharaman had not made any direct imputation against the complainant and that the remarks were aimed at political figures and parties.

Importantly, the Court observed that the statements referred to allegations previously made by Mitra herself against her husband, which had been widely reported in the media and formed part of judicial records. It also noted Mitra’s own deposition acknowledging past marital discord, which was later amicably settled, but without withdrawal of earlier allegations.

“These statements are not false or concocted, but are based on the complainant’s own prior allegations, which are already in the public domain,” the Court said.

The judge also took into account the broader context of the press conference, noting that it was held in response to a widely reported incident involving alleged assault of a woman MP at the official residence of then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal during the election period.

It held that Sitharaman’s remarks were part of a political narrative targeting opposition parties and highlighting alleged conduct of certain leaders, rather than constituting personal defamation.

“Such averments are not imputations but political assertions made before the media and the public,” the Court observed, adding that no prima facie offence of defamation was made out.

Concluding that the essential ingredients of criminal defamation were absent, the Court declined to take cognisance and dismissed the complaint.